|
Post by theevan on Mar 30, 2020 20:13:07 GMT -5
When this sort of thing keeps popping up, something needs to catch fire. Or be fired. They're shooting themselves in the foot if their aim is to discredit Trump. All they do is discredit themselves and lend credence to Trump's "Fake News" claims. It surprises me that you think the editor or somebody should maybe lose their job. In the history of news errors this seems really quite trivial and inconsequential for someone to lose their livelihood over. My view is that it is wristslap worthy, maybe. Edit - perhaps you mean if the editor makes lots of such errors? Edit - I don't know how a 3 second clip of a hospital seeming to calmly go about its business can be aimed at discrediting Trump. I am surprised you're surprised. Several very high-profile TV journalists have been fired over fabrications (eg, Dan Rather). If journalistic integrity is a concern, and it certainly should be, deliberate fabrications must certainly at or near the top of sins. It's not a simple "mistake" or "error". Those, of course, can be corrected and forgiven.
|
|
|
COVID 19
Mar 30, 2020 20:21:06 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by fauxmaha on Mar 30, 2020 20:21:06 GMT -5
Sarah decided she Wanted to go to the ER to have her heart rate checked out (damned Apple watch).
I can report from direct observation that the state of the Lakeside Hospital ER in Omaha is best described as some combination of "vacant" and "overstaffed". I've been sitting here for an hour and no one beside Sarah has come or gone.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 30, 2020 20:29:39 GMT -5
Hoping it's the watch.
|
|
|
COVID 19
Mar 30, 2020 20:36:08 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by fauxmaha on Mar 30, 2020 20:36:08 GMT -5
I'm sure she's fine. Sarah's a worrier. If it weren't for the watch giving her a number, she would have probably just gone to bed.
|
|
|
COVID 19
Mar 30, 2020 20:37:05 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by fauxmaha on Mar 30, 2020 20:37:05 GMT -5
Update...we have a new patient presenting. Appears to be some sort of shoulder unjury.
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 30, 2020 20:40:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 30, 2020 20:44:13 GMT -5
It surprises me that you think the editor or somebody should maybe lose their job. In the history of news errors this seems really quite trivial and inconsequential for someone to lose their livelihood over. My view is that it is wristslap worthy, maybe. Edit - perhaps you mean if the editor makes lots of such errors? Edit - I don't know how a 3 second clip of a hospital seeming to calmly go about its business can be aimed at discrediting Trump. I am surprised you're surprised. Several very high-profile TV journalists have been fired over fabrications (eg, Dan Rather). If journalistic integrity is a concern, and it certainly should be, deliberate fabrications must certainly at or near the top of sins. It's not a simple "mistake" or "error". Those, of course, can be corrected and forgiven. Did you see the unremarkable 3 or 4 seconds of video? It really is not egregious at all. It is a momentary view of a hospital ward with nurses wearing PPE. (At 1:22 - 1:26). www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWm0ytokzOI
|
|
|
COVID 19
Mar 30, 2020 22:54:04 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by t-bob on Mar 30, 2020 22:54:04 GMT -5
57 pages for Covid19 - in a week it’ll be 100 pages
I’m getting tired of all of this Covid19 & the 45
some of the memories sound very cool
I have two videos or article - Vimeo or Atlantic mag. I see it - all the time
Maybe an organizer ? I doubt it actually
I do listen all the forum souls - they’re having some problems
Now it’s time to watch Netflix or walk or play music/games/ crosswords/
That’s all
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Mar 31, 2020 10:46:57 GMT -5
About 300 pages ago I was wondering aloud why we should get tested if we have only mild symptoms. There are several good answers but I found myself wondering about another possible answer. I've read that those who get infected acquire immunity. When the mess subsides a bit, it would help to know whether we have immunity or not. A test would tell us. Without a test, we'll just know that we had some symptoms that might have been the virus but might have been something else. Am I missing something?
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Mar 31, 2020 11:14:14 GMT -5
About 300 pages ago I was wondering aloud why we should get tested if we have only mild symptoms. There are several good answers but I found myself wondering about another possible answer. I've read that those who get infected acquire immunity. When the mess subsides a bit, it would help to know whether we have immunity or not. A test would tell us. Without a test, we'll just know that we had some symptoms that might have been the virus but might have been something else. Am I missing something? Certainly one of the "problems" with all this is that corona virus or not, people still get sick. There are no doubt millions of people at this very moment who either have the common cold or the seasonal flu who are terrified that they have the coronavirus. The CDC has some figures on the 2019-2020 seasonal flu impact: 38 million to 54 million cases, 400,000 to 730,000 hospitalizations, 24,000 to 62,000 deaths. Those aren't projections. Those are estimated actual figures. The wide range of those numbers shows just how hard it is to figure this out. And that's for something relatively well understood. And there might be some bleed over as well. Flu deaths attributed to coronavirus, and vice-versa. When it's all said and done, there will be scientific studies done that will clarify most of this. They'll pull blood samples from carefully chosen random samples of the population, test for the anti-bodies, and develop a clearer understanding of how widespread the exposure/infection rate really was. Eventually, we'll have a decent understanding of the mortality rate as well. Until then, we're really pretty blind.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 31, 2020 11:19:31 GMT -5
About 300 pages ago I was wondering aloud why we should get tested if we have only mild symptoms. There are several good answers but I found myself wondering about another possible answer. I've read that those who get infected acquire immunity. When the mess subsides a bit, it would help to know whether we have immunity or not. A test would tell us. Without a test, we'll just know that we had some symptoms that might have been the virus but might have been something else. Am I missing something? I don't think you're necessarily missing anything other than a solid reason to get tested. There was an interesting article in the WSJ a couple days ago by some statisticians or something that made the very clear point that since we don't actually know much about COVID, we're probably way over estimating the ultimate death toll (and scaring the shit out of people unnecessarily). That's pretty much a function of the more folks that turn up infected and not dead, the lower that effective mortality rate gets. So testing sounds like a somewhat good idea but for the fact that people like me (and I'm positive I'm not close to the only one who feels this way) see no practical reason to get tested. Seriously, why should I care? Am I going to change my behavior? No. The vast majority of folks who do get it ultimately don't experience serious enough symptoms to even notice. I could have it right now. Or maybe I had it last month. So what? Now if there are serious enough symptoms that I have to see a doctor (which I try to avoid), okay, I'll get tested. But only if there's a symptom to be concerned with. If not, I'm happy not knowing. Apparently there are a bunch of folks out there who have talked themselves into being scared shitless while hiding under the bed. But I don't have that option. And even if the unemployment rate skyrockets to 50%, there's still 50% of us that will continue to be brave. And not get tested.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Mar 31, 2020 12:06:25 GMT -5
It's fine not to know as long as you take precautions as if you are infected. One of the biggest reasons this has spread so quickly, is people without symptoms figure they don't have it and get careless about not spreading it.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 31, 2020 12:17:04 GMT -5
About 300 pages ago I was wondering aloud why we should get tested if we have only mild symptoms. There are several good answers but I found myself wondering about another possible answer. I've read that those who get infected acquire immunity. When the mess subsides a bit, it would help to know whether we have immunity or not. A test would tell us. Without a test, we'll just know that we had some symptoms that might have been the virus but might have been something else. Am I missing something? The test I think you are asking about is called an "antibody test". That test does not yet exist for this particular Corona virus. These tests are in advanced stages of development, however, and will likely be available sometime this summer.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Mar 31, 2020 12:18:03 GMT -5
Peter: On the one hand, you point to how limited our understanding of the virus's behavior and spread is, and on the other you "see no practical reason to get tested." But how else to build an epidemiological model and thus a basis for public-health measures? You're brave. You're "happy not knowing." You're doing the necessary and going to work. Insofar as that only affects you, fine. You're "not the only one" with your take on it. Dandy. Meanwhile people are actually getting very sick, actually dying--that choir in Washington State winding up with 45 out of 60 infected and three dead, despite nobody showing symptoms when they came to practice. New York City, northern Italy, Spain, now New Orleans.
Epidemiologists and public-health people are very curious, not about you but about your datum, and the data that widespread testing would provide, precisely to get a picture of the distribution of the virus--not just whether you have it (or, in a better world, with an antibody test as well) you once had it.
As for "hiding under the bed"--I'm 75. I take an immunospressant. My 74-year-old wife has an asthma-like respiratory condition and had pneumonia last summer. Current data says that the virus can indeed be aerosolized. I'm not hiding under the bed, but I'm not going to go play in traffic while blindfolded, either. I don't want to get even a little sick (let alone drown in my own fluids), and I sure as hell don't want to take a chance of getting infected and possibly infecting my even more vulnerable wife. That's my skin in the game--what I have at risk. It's a materialist's version of Pascal's wager, based on better information than Pascal had.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 31, 2020 12:31:22 GMT -5
Peter: On the one hand, you point to how limited our understanding of the virus's behavior and spread is, and on the other you "see no practical reason to get tested." But how else to build an epidemiological model and thus a basis for public-health measures? You're brave. You're "happy not knowing." You're doing the necessary and going to work. Insofar as that only affects you, fine. You're "not the only one" with your take on it. Dandy. Meanwhile people are actually getting very sick, actually dying--that choir in Washington State winding up with 45 out of 60 infected and three dead, despite nobody showing symptoms when they came to practice. New York City, northern Italy, Spain, now New Orleans. Epidemiologists and public-health people are very curious, not about you but about your datum, and the data that widespread testing would provide, precisely to get a picture of the distribution of the virus--not just whether you have it (or, in a better world, with an antibody test as well) you once had it. As for "hiding under the bed"--I'm 75. I take an immunospressant. My 74-year-old wife has an asthma-like respiratory condition and had pneumonia last summer. Current data says that the virus can indeed be aerosolized. I'm not hiding under the bed, but I'm not going to go play in traffic while blindfolded, either. I don't want to get even a little sick (let alone drown in my own fluids), and I sure as hell don't want to take a chance of getting infected and possibly infecting my even more vulnerable wife. That's my skin in the game--what I have at risk. It's a materialist's version of Pascal's wager, based on better information than Pascal had. OK. So when do you want all 330 million of us to show up for testing?
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Mar 31, 2020 12:34:32 GMT -5
The tests that are in place now are "viral detection" tests, tests that will inform whether or not you are currently infected. And yes, if you do take such a test and it reveals whether or not the virus is present, and if it is, you will develop antibodies that resist that particular virus should you encounter it again.
In development are "antibody" tests that will reveal whether or not your body has developed antibodies that are "attuned" (ready to kick ass) to this current virus. And yes, such a test will be very useful as it gets right to the point, (what you really want to know), have you developed antibodies that will resist this current virus; and it will likely be a quicker, cheaper test (even those who have experienced no symptoms (this go round, past results don't guarantee the future) can discover whether or not they have developed antibodies that are ready to do battle with this virus should they encounter it again.
|
|
|
Post by james on Mar 31, 2020 12:36:24 GMT -5
Bragging about being one of the brave and scoffing at other people for their anxieties is not clever, useful or nice.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Mar 31, 2020 12:37:12 GMT -5
It will help to know who's immune and who isn't. It's not lost on anyone that we'll have to get the economy rolling again when the worst is past or we'll all starve. But the virus will still be around. People who have acquired immunity can go back to work safely. I suspect that a lot of people at low risk may opt to run the risk.
The calculus for those who are at significantly higher risk will be different. Let's say risk factors put you in a category where there's a 20 percent chance of death if you get infected. There's a very high risk of infecting those in your household, some of whom may also be at high risk. There's the added risk to healthcare workers who treat us. So exposing yourself to the virus will remain very dangerous for some unless they've acquired immunity. There may be a segment of the population for whom the current limitations won't be going away until a vaccine is found. I don't like this picture but it doesn't care whether I like it.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Mar 31, 2020 12:40:08 GMT -5
Bragging about being one of the brave and scoffing at other people for their anxieties is not clever, useful or nice. Consider me thoroughly chastised.
|
|
|
Post by Hobson on Mar 31, 2020 12:41:23 GMT -5
Nice to see some intelligent discussion here. And James, thank you for your comment.
|
|